Back in my post
Who is turning the screws on Todd Wood, the creationist biologist who opposes Tennesee's new monkey law? I noted how it was odd that Todd Wood, one of the only non-delusional professional creationists in existence, first put up an open letter to the governor of Tennessee opposing Tennessee's crypto-creationist "academic freedom" bill, and then mysteriously took it down a few days later.
Now that the bill has passed (although the governor decided not to sign it, a small (very small) victory for all the science and education organizations that opposed the bill),
Wood has put up another post both (a) explaining what happened to the letter and (b) explaining in much more detail the problems with the law and with the whole misbegotten creationist/ID strategy of trying to get their stuff into the schools through political means rather than the responsible way of convincing the scientific community.
Josh Rosenau wrote up a good commentary. Short version of what we learned in
Wood's post:
1. Wood says he took the letter down of his own free will. He said, "I can make my own decisions to take down a blog post that in retrospect doesn't meet my own quality standards." Confusingly, though, Wood didn't say what was lacking in the letter. Wood certainly didn't
change his position on the bill, which if anything more negative and less diplomatic now than it was then.
2. Although Wood claims no one turned the screws on him, I think it is pretty clear that the creationist lobby tried. This is Wood's summary of what one of his friends told him:
I know that law is not my expertise, so when I get a letter from a trusted friend saying that my opinion is "legally and politically naive" I listen.
Actually, Wood's letter was legally and politically canny in many ways. The only way it was naive was in the statements that the law was unnecessary for creationists and that it would have no effect on education, but presumably that was not the naiveté that Wood's presumably creationist friend was talking about. The law is necessary if you want to increase the teaching of creationist/IDist B.S. in Tennessee public schools.
Then, even more incredibly, Wood reports that John West of the Discovery Institute -- yes, the Discovery "we're not creationists,
especially not young-earth-just-fell-off-the-turnip-truck creationists" Institute -- apparently circulated a letter to Bryan College employees lambasting Wood for daring to be a creationist with an independent voice who doesn't think creationism should be pushed in the political arena before it succeeds in the scientific arena:
Back to my own experience: I took my letter to the governor down less than 24 hours after I put it up, and a few days later, a staff member at the college passed along a letter from John West of the Discovery Institute trying to drum up some resistance on the Bryan campus to my opinion. As far as I know, his efforts had zero effect on campus, since I didn't hear from any other person on campus about it. In his letter, West described me as "one cranky self-described 'creationist' who seems to get his facts from Panda's Thumb."
I guess Todd Wood, young-earther and professor at William Jennings Bryan College,
isn't creationist enough for the Discovery Institute's John West! And that's quite something.
I suppose that I should mention that I had absolutely no direct information, apart from the removal of Wood's open letter, that the Discovery Institute's screw-turning shenanigans were going on when I wrote:
Did someone at Bryan College object to a creationist going off-message? Did someone at the Discovery Institute get worried about the influence that a Tennessee-based professional creationist opposing the law would have, and call up Bryan College or Wood himself and start harassing them?
According to Wood, this sort of thing wasn't the cause of him taking down the letter -- but nevertheless exactly these sorts of attempts were actually made! Am I psychic, or do I just know how these guys operate? We report, you decide.
39 Comments
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 13 April 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/j5i6uksLusgEaijZZYDXbBvVNwGLR34JYQj_JIeOO3eKfg--#35e25 · 13 April 2012
Poor Todd Wood. You have to sympathize with his problems, being the world's only honest creationist. It must get lonely. What will happen if, someday, he realizes that his goal of coming up with a true, scientific theory of creationism is impossible? Unfortunately, he's probably more likely to reject science than his interpretation of Genesis. But he could be a real scientist if he went the other way, and probably a good one. It's an ugly trap he's found himself in, and it's a shame.
Robert Byers · 13 April 2012
Whether its todd Wood or the governor they are only okay people if they do the right thing as I understand this post.
First its a bad state but then a good governor giving evolutions a "small" victory.
Was there a victory here? What defines "small" relative to nothing?
This was a defeat of privat groups trying to stop the will of the people.
its quite possible 80-90% of Tenn agrees with this law if they heard about it.
The governor could of stopped it but didn't. Thats not a hero!
Why not believe in the people to be able to weigh matters like in origin subjects?
They do it anyways!
Yes its more suggestive to the kids that doubt in evolution is part of the nations institutions but in the end they still look at things on the merits.
Possibly creationism opinion amongst these kids might drop if they heard both sides.
I think evolutionary biology is the one that will suffer.
Thats why removal of censorship is such a positive thing to us.
DS · 13 April 2012
Whether its todd Wood or the governor they are only okay people if they do the right thing as I understand this post. First its a bad state but then a good governor giving gravities a “small” victory. Was there a victory here? What defines “small” relative to nothing? This was a defeat of privat groups trying to stop the will of the people. its quite possible 80-90% of Tenn agrees with this law if they heard about it. The governor could of stopped it but didn’t. Thats not a hero! Why not believe in the people to be able to weigh matters like in gravity subjects? They do it anyways! Yes its more suggestive to the kids that doubt in gravity is part of the nations institutions but in the end they still look at things on the merits. Possibly gravity opinion amongst these kids might drop if they heard both sides. I think gravity theory is the one that will suffer. Thats why removal of censorship is such a positive thing to us.
See, this "argument" works for any scientific "controversy". Let the stupid, ignorant, illiterate kids decide. They will anyways. Why even try to educate them in reality. Is that really what an education os for?
fnxtr · 13 April 2012
Robert: It's "would have", not "would of".
Only a complete fucking moron doesn't understand this.
Scott F · 13 April 2012
Scott F · 13 April 2012
Actually, I remember we did that. In junior high history class, we had a "trial". The question before the "court" of student opinion was whether World War II was necessary or not. Some of us (the more motivated) did quite a bit of research on the subject, and some of the students took on roles (Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, etc.) to be called as "witnesses" to explain their side of the story. I was the "prosecuting" attorney. (Which was really choice. I had to write scripts for half of the "witnesses", who couldn't be bothered to find out anything about their own "character", the character that they voluntarily chose to portray.) On paper, it was actually kind of clever. The class could have learned a lot, and some of us did. But...
In the end, the rest of the students "voted". The verdict of the jury? After all that, still a quarter of the students couldn't even identify who was on which side in the war. Many couldn't identify what century the war was fought in. Less than half could say why the war was even fought. Some didn't know who won or who lost. (Well, they knew that *we* won, but that was about it.)
Let the students decide? Let the students decide? The students are unimaginably ignorant (not "stupid", just mind boggling ignorant), and if they were allowed to vote on it, the vast majority would prefer to remain that way. And I'm speaking from experience, having grown up with them.
DavidK · 13 April 2012
"... and with the whole misbegotten creationist/ID strategy of trying to get their stuff into the schools through political means rather than the responsible way of convincing the scientific community."
This is the sad point, that what the legislatures and the likes of the dishonesty institute stink tank force upon others is that those who support creationism must rely on the political system to advance their empty agenda as their creationist notions have absolutely no scientific merit.
RM · 14 April 2012
When I read Robert Byers's contribution I am reminded of my own inability to find the ' button when typing in darkness.
Rolf · 14 April 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 · 14 April 2012
Robert Byers
Well, we can just as easily ask schoolkids to weigh matters in regards to the learning of trigonometry and calculus. I'm pretty sure that there would be enthusiastic support from kids for the removal ot these topics from the high school maths curriculum.
Do you think that this would be a good idea? Would you support the removal of said topics on the basis of popular support? If not, on the basis of which "special" criteria?
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 14 April 2012
John · 14 April 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/j5i6uksLusgEaijZZYDXbBvVNwGLR34JYQj_JIeOO3eKfg--#35e25 · 14 April 2012
Hey, how did I become a masked panda (comment #2)? It's never happened to me before. This is John Harshman. Somebody really should fix this.
Paul Burnett · 14 April 2012
Paul Burnett · 14 April 2012
Paul Burnett · 14 April 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 14 April 2012
Richard B. Hoppe · 14 April 2012
Paul Burnett · 14 April 2012
apokryltaros · 14 April 2012
elucifuga · 14 April 2012
Help keep Oklahoma from becoming the third state to adopt an ‘academic freedom act’!! We have mounted as many messages as we can to the entire Senate asking that they remove the amendment to HB 2341. The Senate floor amendment by Sen. Steve Russell takes the entirety of HB 1551 (copied from the LA law) Non-residents might help as well, but if you do – be respectful. One can send one message to the entire Oklahoma Senate by copying the entire address list and pasting into the ‘TO’ block, mentioning opposition to amendment to HB 2341 and add just a few sentences in the body; a long message not needed – we just need NUMBERS in opposition. We appreciate the help readers of this blog may provide!
More information and the addresses of the Oklahoma Senate are on the OESE web site ( http://www.oklascience.org/ )
Red Right Hand · 14 April 2012
Scott F · 14 April 2012
Scott F · 14 April 2012
Paul Burnett · 14 April 2012
Robert Byers · 15 April 2012
Robert Byers · 15 April 2012
Robert Byers · 15 April 2012
co · 16 April 2012
dalehusband · 16 April 2012
Paul Burnett · 16 April 2012
Ray Martinez · 17 April 2012
Dave Luckett · 17 April 2012
The skirl of the bagpipes accompanies Ray everywhere he goes. Whole kilted armies of True Scotsmen on their wild haggises ride at his beck.
What Ray is saying, of course, is that there are no creationists but those he recognises. Excellent. That would be Ray and some bloke in Watford who's just as crazy as he is. And Ray's not sure about the bloke in Watford.
The besetting grace about creationists is that if they had fifteen minutes of domination, they'd use it to slit one another's throats.
Rolf · 18 April 2012
dalehusband · 19 April 2012
Jay · 28 April 2012
According to Russell Grigg, his article ask, 'Could monkeys type the 23rd Psalm?' He calculates that if a monkey types one key at random per second, the average time to produce the word 'the' is 34.72 hours. To produce something as long as the 23rd Psalm (a short Hebrew poem made up of 603 letters, verse numbers and spaces) would take on average around 10*1017. As William Dembski says, we make from our experience with information-rich systems such as languages, codes, computers, machines etc.
Mike Elzinga · 28 April 2012
DS · 28 April 2012